Apparently Schwartz went on 97.1 proclaiming Suh played his best game as a Lion Sunday- and even went as far to say that anyone stating otherwise has a separate agenda from the truth.

I think Schwartz is in over his head. His team has come out ready to play only once this season, and it took losing to two scrub teams before he stomped out the kinks in STs.

Kevin Seifert of ESPN thought this comment was suspicious, so he reviewed the game tape and looked just at what Suh did on his 64 defensive snaps. He noted 11 plays in which Suh disrupted or straight-up foiled the Vikings' offensive play, mostly by forcing incompletions or by causing the Vikings to essentially waste a down on a negative or very small-gain play. To be fair, he also noted 3 plays in which he might have been responsible for 14 and 15 yard gains by being pushed out of his gap, and he notes that Peterson ran past him on his 2PC late in the game. It's also not entirely clear that Suh was really responsible for maintaining those gaps on those plays, either.

It's easy to look at a stat sheet in which Suh gets 2 sacks, a blocked pass, and 5 tackles and say it's better than a game in which he has 1 tackle and no other measurable stat, but if he forces incompletions on 3rd and 4 four times, that's better than making three "stat" plays and making 5 tackles totaling 36 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, as sometimes happens even with DTs.

When I watched the game I might have thought "nice play Suh" exactly once or twice. But Schwartz is paying much more attention than I am, or you are. He's the one that knows what Suh is supposed to do on every called play. There's at least some justification behind his comments. I'm not saying I buy that it's his best game ever, but at least there's some food for thought.

Apparently Schwartz went on 97.1 proclaiming Suh played his best game as a Lion Sunday- and even went as far to say that anyone stating otherwise has a separate agenda from the truth.

I think Schwartz is in over his head. His team has come out ready to play only once this season, and it took losing to two scrub teams before he stomped out the kinks in STs.

Kevin Seifert of ESPN thought this comment was suspicious, so he reviewed the game tape and looked just at what Suh did on his 64 defensive snaps. He noted 11 plays in which Suh disrupted or straight-up foiled the Vikings' offensive play, mostly by forcing incompletions or by causing the Vikings to essentially waste a down on a negative or very small-gain play. To be fair, he also noted 3 plays in which he might have been responsible for 14 and 15 yard gains by being pushed out of his gap, and he notes that Peterson ran past him on his 2PC late in the game. It's also not entirely clear that Suh was really responsible for maintaining those gaps on those plays, either.

It's easy to look at a stat sheet in which Suh gets 2 sacks, a blocked pass, and 5 tackles and say it's better than a game in which he has 1 tackle and no other measurable stat, but if he forces incompletions on 3rd and 4 four times, that's better than making three "stat" plays and making 5 tackles totaling 36 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, as sometimes happens even with DTs.

When I watched the game I might have thought "nice play Suh" exactly once or twice. But Schwartz is paying much more attention than I am, or you are. He's the one that knows what Suh is supposed to do on every called play. There's at least some justification behind his comments. I'm not saying I buy that it's his best game ever, but at least there's some food for thought.

Apparently Schwartz went on 97.1 proclaiming Suh played his best game as a Lion Sunday- and even went as far to say that anyone stating otherwise has a separate agenda from the truth.

I think Schwartz is in over his head. His team has come out ready to play only once this season, and it took losing to two scrub teams before he stomped out the kinks in STs.

Kevin Seifert of ESPN thought this comment was suspicious, so he reviewed the game tape and looked just at what Suh did on his 64 defensive snaps. He noted 11 plays in which Suh disrupted or straight-up foiled the Vikings' offensive play, mostly by forcing incompletions or by causing the Vikings to essentially waste a down on a negative or very small-gain play. To be fair, he also noted 3 plays in which he might have been responsible for 14 and 15 yard gains by being pushed out of his gap, and he notes that Peterson ran past him on his 2PC late in the game. It's also not entirely clear that Suh was really responsible for maintaining those gaps on those plays, either.

It's easy to look at a stat sheet in which Suh gets 2 sacks, a blocked pass, and 5 tackles and say it's better than a game in which he has 1 tackle and no other measurable stat, but if he forces incompletions on 3rd and 4 four times, that's better than making three "stat" plays and making 5 tackles totaling 36 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, as sometimes happens even with DTs.

When I watched the game I might have thought "nice play Suh" exactly once or twice. But Schwartz is paying much more attention than I am, or you are. He's the one that knows what Suh is supposed to do on every called play. There's at least some justification behind his comments. I'm not saying I buy that it's his best game ever, but at least there's some food for thought.

Harrison and Clark have been pretty dirty over the years! _________________You have to stand bye your convictions, sometimes you might stand alone does ANYONE THINK CUSTER IDEA MARCHING INTO LITTLE BIG HORN WAS A GOOD ONE?

NEXT TIME STOMP ON HIM GET YOUR MONEYS WORTH ALL I AM SAYING ABOUT IT!

Homer thread. How can people argue Suh is not the dirtiest player? We're fans(unless someone here plays in the pros) and we don't play the game. We don't hear the trash, we're not on the field, we don't personally know these guys. What if they did voting at your office. Most dirtiest, most valuable and most over rated. Does the security guard know best?

You can argue that you watch games but so do the players and the coaches watch every game tape of the season on their opponent. I almost certain they go over most players and do a this is what to expect.

Players only vote Suh because media... How can some people say cortland(based on previous winner of the dirtiest player), talib (offseason issues), Burress(off field), Vick( off field). All reported by media. Fans are probably more media minded than players.

Suh only has one penalty... I didn't know penalties determined dirtiest player.
If I was punched by someone face to face compared to stomped on I would consider the guy that stepped on my face more dirty than the player that punched me even if enticed it.

*based on arguments I've seen in this thread. Didn't quote them. Phone

Homer thread. How can people argue Suh is not the dirtiest player? We're fans(unless someone here plays in the pros) and we don't play the game. We don't hear the trash, we're not on the field, we don't personally know these guys. What if they did voting at your office. Most dirtiest, most valuable and most over rated. Does the security guard know best?

You can argue that you watch games but so do the players and the coaches watch every game tape of the season on their opponent. I almost certain they go over most players and do a this is what to expect.

Players only vote Suh because media... How can some people say cortland(based on previous winner of the dirtiest player), talib (offseason issues), Burress(off field), Vick( off field). All reported by media. Fans are probably more media minded than players.

Suh only has one penalty... I didn't know penalties determined dirtiest player.
If I was punched by someone face to face compared to stomped on I would consider the guy that stepped on my face more dirty than the player that punched me even if enticed it.

*based on arguments I've seen in this thread. Didn't quote them. Phone

Didn't step on face. But okay._________________

Vikefan79 wrote:

And you know what about the playoffs and/or quarterbacks being a Detroit fan?